1. Results – effects of having a target named Comparing known & unknown targets (“name” condition) with known & unknown pictures (“look” condition) In other words comparing “Default” looking words (targets in “name” condition, known in “look” condition) by “name” vs “look” Test of Schafer et al. Looking after sound whether word was known (F1,17 = 13.09, p =.002,  2 =.44) No other effects including no effect of condition i.e. of hearing the name of the word ( Only effects on latency or looking during sound are of side) Study 2 - Discussion Naming of items increases looking time overall But does not increase looking time to targets no more than knowing a word increases looking time to its picture, in the absence of a name Naming increase probably general attentional phenomenon More variable input! Conclusions Children may look at target-known pictures more than non- target or unknown pictures But may not be because of N3C principle Simply knowing a word increases looking N3C seems to apply preferentially when parent is “helping” Any effect of child’s vocabulary? References Golinkoff, R. M., Mervis, C. B., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1994). Early object labels: The case for a developmental lexical principles framework. Journal of Child Language, 21(1), 125-155. Schafer, G., Plunkett, K., & Harris, P. L. (1999). What's in a name? Lexical knowledge drives infants' visual preferences in the absence of referential input. Developmental Science, 2(2), 187. What are they looking at? Techniques in Preferential Looking Katie Alcock and Sarah Watts Department of Psychology, Lancaster University and Department of Psychology, City University, London k.j.alcock@lancaster.ac.uk Assumptions in preferential looking Parent interference affects results vs No response from parent will disturb child Children will look at target if they can distinguish it from non- target Scoring issues? - which looks to score Novel-name nameless-category principle (Golinkoff) But Schafer, Plunkett & Harris (1999) Standard preferential looking Did not name words More looking at pictures referring to words the child knew ?Looking depends on knowledge, not on use of input as referent/instruction Study 1 - Parental looking Basic preferential looking paradigm Two pictures “Look! Look at the X” Children’s knowledge of a 75-item word list assessed Balanced known/unknown words within and across children Scored start and finish of each look Total looking after end of sound file Latency of first look after end of sound file Number of items 10-20 depending on children’s vocabulary “Known target” condition (child knows “apple”) “Unknown target” (child does not know “bear”) Parent manipulation Blind/deaf condition Parents wear sleep mask and hear music over headphones See/hear condition Parents can see and hear Participants 22 children aged 17-19 months, 9F, 13M Recruited through nurseries in North London Results - baseline - looking before sound file ends Main effect of side (F 6.68, p =.017,  2 =.24) No other main effects or interactions Results - looking time after sound: main effects Children look more at known words (F1,21 =17.56, p <.001, η2 =.46) Children look more at target words (F1,21 = 35.10, p <.001, η2 =.63) Children look more to the right (F1,21 = 4.81, p =.040, η2 =.19) Results - looking time after sound: interactions Interaction between parent condition, known, and target: (F1,21 = 5.30, p =.032, η2 =.20) When parent can see/hear classic pattern of more looking at target for both known & unknown targets When parent can’t see/hear in unknown target condition no difference between target (unknown) and non-target (known) Effect of parent looking/speaking/pointing? 10 parents: parent behaviour videoed and scored Parents all did something either looked, pointed, or spoke at some point during testing Group really too small for analysis But some interactions Study 1 - Discussion Parent interaction is affecting children’s performance May help to explain N3C principle findings in some studies Study 2 - Naming targets Same paradigm Two pictures Look! Look at the X! (“name” condition) Look! Look at that! (“look” condition) Words chosen in same way as study 1 “Name” condition as Study 1 Balanced order again “Look” condition (child knows one of two words) Participants 20 children aged 17-19 months, recruited as above (2 children did not complete testing so N = 18) Results - effects of knowing a word Collapsing targets/non-targets in “name” condition In other words comparing: Known with unknown (regardless of whether they are named or not) by “name” condition vs “look” condition Looking time after sound ends: known (F1,17 = 4.647, p =.046,  2 =.22) more looking at pictures representing known words condition (F1,17 = 4.316, p =.053,  2 =.20) Slightly more looking overall in “name” condition No effect on latency No effect on looking before the picture is named